Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (398)	5/17/2007 1:25:50 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

Follow up question, Mr. President. If there's a major oil and gas field in Alaska that has been sitting there for 40 years, why was your predecessor [and his party] so intent on developing oil fields in ANWR? Ahh.. I understand now.. Very good points. If an asset is not developed, then lease should not be renewed. Obviously we can suspect Exxon leased the area in order to control the amount of supply coming from domestic sources. Either that, or they didn't feel market economics justified entering into production. But when such circumstances would come to my attention, I have an obligation to the people of the country, and the nation, to ensure that our natural resources are properly managed. Now let me ask you something.. Since oil is a fungible market, and that undeveloped oil is as likely to be shipped to Japan, as it is to the Lower '48, some would claim that it makes sense to keep a reserve available within our borders that can be tapped in the event of a national emergency (another oil embargo). The SPR will only last so long before it would be drained. So there's a different side to the equation. Basically, I need more facts. How big is the ANWR deposit to the one you've referenced related to Exxon? Hawk